A note on screen resolution, and what it really means in terms of what can be displayed:
- The ARNAV ICDS 2000 screen has the CAPABILITY to display 640 x 480 pixels (don’t know how many colors). It is not being driven that way – I don’t know what the software actually supports, but it seems like much less.
- The Avidyne FlightMax series (450, 640, 750) supports 320 x 234 pixels x 65,536 colors according to their brochure.
Although the Avidyne supports much lower pixel resolution than the potential resolution of the ARNAV unit, it manages to display sectional charts, etc., with stunning clarity judging by the pics in their brochure.
It would seem that if ARNAV decides to display more, in more detail, they could do so very successfully.
Additional info - the very impressive Apollo MX20 matches the ARNAV potential with a 640 x 480 pixel display; it supports 65,536 colors.
By reading some of the posts regarding ARNAV I can’t tell how many of you are already flying the SR22 or just hangar-talking…
I think you guys are missing the point. How much time do you want to spend with your head buried in all the avionics available on the SR22 while you’re flying faster than most retracts out there? Are you going to look outside every few minutes? I find all the stuff distracting… sure I’m a gadget guy so I love all the stuff but I also know how dangerous it is to spend too much time and attention on ARNAV and the two Garmin 430s. I’m still learning… sometimes its scary how you can forget what can happen while you’re looking down. I think the ARNAV in my SR22 is great. I haven’t figured out all it can do but one thing … The checklists are really great.
-
The ARNAV ICDS 2000 screen has the CAPABILITY to display 640 x 480 pixels (don’t know how many colors). It is not being driven that way – I don’t know what the software actually supports, but it seems like much less.
-
The Avidyne FlightMax series (450, 640, 750) supports 320 x 234 pixels x 65,536 colors according to their brochure.
Although the Avidyne supports much lower pixel resolution than the potential resolution of the ARNAV unit, it manages to display sectional charts, etc., with stunning clarity judging by the pics in their brochure.
It would seem that if ARNAV decides to display more, in more detail, they could do so very successfully.
From the very beginning I have been critical of the lack of panel real estate in the Cirrus.
One of the prime characteristics of most pilots is that they’re incurable gadget freaks. Since Cirrus seemed to be so well attuned to pilots’ desires in their cockpit design, I presumed they knew this. So I was surprised when they left no room in the panel for new gadgets! I figured their plan was to use the Arnav as the display/control-head for add-ons. (Either that, or they had no plan at all!)
Arnav has now proved to be woefully unresponsive (and Cirrus puts up with it) and there’s no room in the panel for alternatives. Either way it’s a real problem.
Cirrus doesn’t seem to understand that this is more than just a display issue. It’s a question of the future expandability and upgradability of the panel, and that’s what has us concerned. People buy a Cirrus to be on the cutting edge, not to be “locked-in” to obsolete (or soon-to-be-obsolete) equipment.
I’m afraid the Cirrus is getting to be the Apple Computer of GA: You get it our way or you don’t get it at all. That’s fine, until an IBM comes along and changes the world.
IMHO, Cirrus has completely missed the importance of this issue.
Joe
-
of colors: As you point out, MX20 supports 64K colors; I suspect the Arnav supports far fewer. Perhaps only 16 (that’s all it seems to support now), maybe 256. [Or maybe 64K - I really don’t know].
Steve,
I’m trying to find this out now; will post when I get the answer.
Mike.
I suspect there are enough masochistic wealthy Cirrus owners/position holders that we look at improving the situation using less conventional methods. 
Paul
I suspect there are enough masochistic wealthy Cirrus owners/position holders that we look at improving the situation using less conventional methods. 
Paul
I’m IN!! How tough can it be to improve on the ICDS 2000 display?
Cheers,
George
SR22 #95
For everyone’s benefit I hope we / CIRRUS can change from ARNAV to a different unit real soon.
In my own selfish way I hope they change before mine is produced, 4 1/2 months and counting.
Bob
I fly VFR in a lot of complex air space in cal. I can see the ground but I can’t see the air space restictions. with the big Arnav screen you always know where you are what your doing . It also reduces the amount of paper and calculating needed and makes flying a lot more fun and a lot less work!
I fly VFR in a lot of complex air space in cal. I can see the ground but I can’t see the air space restictions. with the big Arnav screen you always know where you are what your doing . It also reduces the amount of paper and calculating needed and makes flying a lot more fun and a lot less work!
Dave
I love the idea of a moving map / big screen, however no one seems to be thrilled about ARNAV. In fact it seems to be the only element of the SRxx that is constantly commented on and complained about. You and Jim Fallows are the only ones I remember commenting on the positive aspects of the ARNAV screen.
A higher resolution screen with more ability sure sounds nice. Even if it is a little smaller that may be an advantage leaving more panel space for add on’s.
I am forced to use a Garman GPSMAP 295 for the purpose you describe and I’m looking forward to a larger screen right in front of me. I fly out of DVO and have to deal with the SFO airspace any time I want to go south.
Do you have a SR 20 or 22?
Bob
You and Jim Fallows are the only ones I remember commenting on the positive aspects of the ARNAV screen.
Bob,
Add another who’s commented on the positive aspects of the ARNAV display. There’s a lot I like about it, including its size and the checklists.
There are also several aspects of the product and the company that have me, well, sitting on the fence. If I were a jury, I’d still be out. As we speak, I am trying to get several issues resolved and a whole bunch of questions answered. The timing, form and substance of the responses I get will have a lot to do with the verdict.
Way back when, when I was flying P-3C Orions, I had the chance to fly along on a mission in an RAF Nimrod, which was also an anti-submarine warfare aircraft.
At first I was blown away by the size of their tactical display – it was huge and looked very impressive.
But I soon noticed that it didn’t display near as much information as the smaller display in the P-3C. When I asked about that, the Brits admitted that there really wasn’t much info there compared to the P-3, and that the dinky computer running it had been originally used in tanks! As it turns out, they were in awe of the P-3’s capabilities, even with the smaller display.
So, for me, bigger doesn’t necessarily mean better, and Arnav = Nimrod; MX20/Avidyne = Orion.
Joe
You and Jim Fallows are the only ones I remember commenting on the positive aspects of the ARNAV screen.
Bob,
Add another who’s commented on the positive aspects of the ARNAV display. There’s a lot I like about it, including its size and the checklists.
There are also several aspects of the product and the company that have me, well, sitting on the fence. If I were a jury, I’d still be out. As we speak, I am trying to get several issues resolved and a whole bunch of questions answered. The timing, form and substance of the responses I get will have a lot to do with the verdict.
I think you guys are missing the point. How much time do you want to spend with your head buried in all the avionics available on the SR22 while you’re flying faster than most retracts out there?
I think you are missing the point. A unit like the Avidyne with sectionals, IFR En Route charts, and soon Approach Plates gives you information you need quickly and lighted. This gives you more time scanning and less time folding, unfolding, and searching for maps and plates.
I don’t use sectionals or enroute charts much in flight. (I set up one of the Garmins to show MSA which sometimes is of interest). Most of the information that you need you can get from the Garmins or the ARNAV. I agree with those that have said that you have to deliberately try to keep your head out of the cockpit and not play with the electronics.
I think you are missing the point. A unit like the Avidyne with sectionals, IFR En Route charts, and soon Approach Plates gives you information you need quickly and lighted. This gives you more time scanning and less time folding, unfolding, and searching for maps and plates.
I don’t use sectionals or enroute charts much in flight.
When a controller tells you to report crossing Victor 12 you have to use enroute charts. I don’t think Garmin provides MEA, MOCA, or MCA. I also don’t think it shows enroute holding patterns either. I certainly won’t replace an approach plate.
When a controller tells you to report crossing Victor 12 you have to use enroute charts.
Actually, ARNAV can display all airways, including Victor 12!
Joe, I think Cirrus has believed from the beginning that cutting holes in the panel for more gauges is an obsolete concept.They are the only company that had the guts to move G.A. forward, and information from one large screen is part of that thinking.I beleive Arnav also put a lot of faith in Cirrus and the hope that they would be the ones that could sell enough planes to make further software development worth the effort.I have seen the new engine monitoring install and i am very impressed.I think wth a little more time and a plane that is quickly changing the industry,Arnav will have the incentive to provide us with whatever we want
I agree that it’s hard to be on the “bleeding” edge of technology, and easy to make a mistake there. I admire Cirrus for having the courage to venture out there. However, I don’t think the more traditional manufacturers are the complete ninnies that Cirrus devotees often portray them to be. TheyÂ’ve learned a thing or two over the years, and “more panel space = good” is one of them. Virtually every GA manufacturer today is moving away from dolled-up panels to more utilitarian ones. Compare the panel of an older Saratoga to a new one, same thing for Mooney, Beech, Commander, and to a lesser extent Cessna (since they were never much into fancy panels in the first place). Even Socata had abandoned its cosmetic panel trim to make it more installer-friendly. TheyÂ’ve learned that pilots want the latest gadgets, and thereÂ’s money to be made selling them. Win-win. And with the half-life of the latest toys getting shorter and shorter, anything permanent will be obsolete very quickly indeed.
Finally, your argument about hole-cutting being obsolete would be much more persuasive if Cirrus had provided an improved alternative. So far they haven’t and, worse, don’t seem to be much concerned about it.
Cirrus is a good company that produce good (very good) airplanes. But they are a company, not a religion, and even Cirrus can occasionally make a mistake.
Perhaps Cirrus has some great and wonderful plan unknowable by us mortals for solving this problem. Perhaps we should just have faith. I’d prefer dialogue.
Cheers,
Joe
Joe, I think Cirrus has believed from the beginning that cutting holes in the panel for more gauges is an obsolete concept.They are the only company that had the guts to move G.A. forward, and information from one large screen is part of that thinking.I beleive Arnav also put a lot of faith in Cirrus and the hope that they would be the ones that could sell enough planes to make further software development worth the effort.I have seen the new engine monitoring install and i am very impressed.I think wth a little more time and a plane that is quickly changing the industry,Arnav will have the incentive to provide us with whatever we want